Re: [PATCH v1 6/9] uretprobes: Return probe exit, invoke handlers

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 04/07, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> > +static void
> > +handler_uretprobe_chain(struct return_instance *ri, struct pt_regs *regs)
>
> > +{
> > +	struct uprobe *uprobe = ri->uprobe;
> > +	struct uprobe_consumer *uc;
> > +
> > +	down_read(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
> > +	for (uc = uprobe->consumers; uc; uc = uc->next) {
> > +		if (uc->ret_handler)
> > +			uc->ret_handler(uc, ri->func, regs);
> > +	}
> > +	up_read(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static bool handler_uretprobe(struct pt_regs *regs)
>
> Nit: can this be renamed to handle_trampoline

Agreed.

And probably handler_uretprobe_chain() should be ret_handler_chain()
to match handler_chain().

> > +{
> > +	struct uprobe_task *utask;
> > +	struct return_instance *ri, *tmp;
> > +	bool chained;
> > +
> > +	utask = current->utask;
> > +	if (!utask)
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	ri = utask->return_instances;
> > +	if (!ri)
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	instruction_pointer_set(regs, ri->orig_ret_vaddr);
>
> Should we a check here before using top most ri.
> What if the application had done a longjmp and the trampoline he hit
> corresponds to something thats below in the stack?
>
> Not sure if this what you meant by leaking return instances in your next
> patch.

Oh yes, this should be documented more explicitly in the changelog of
this patch or 7/9 (which tries to document the limitations but should
be more clear).

Currently we do not support longjmp() and we assume that the probed
function should do the regular return. We should certainly try to improve
this, but I really think that this should go into the next series.

Because this is nontrivial, needs more discussion, and I'm afraid should
be per-arch. Even on x86 (which can check the stack) this is not simple,
in general we can't know how to check that (to simplify) the first frame
is already invalid. Just for example, we could check regs->sp and detect
that longjmp() was called but sigaltstack() can easily fool this logic.

Or we can change prepare_uretprobe() to alloc the new slot for the
trampoline every time (and mark it as "trampoline" for handle_swbp() of
course), this way we can easily discard the invalid ret_instance's in
handler_uretprobe(). But this doesn't solve all problems and this is
not really nice/simple.

In short. I think we should document the limitations more clearly, push
this functionality, then try to improve things. Do you agree?

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/